Militz-Frielink

In James Ferguson's piece The Uses of Neoliberalism, his exploration of the term (neoliberalism), the various connotations and implications are best illustrated in his example of the basic income grant (BIG) campaign in South Africa.  The paradoxical pro-poor neoliberal policy gives monthly cash grants to impoverished citizens.  Using a Keyesian economic framework, the policy argues that poor citizens know best what to do with their cash and will have wider access to different goods and services if given cash without state control. The only caveat is they must be citizens of South Africa, which means the poor undocumented workers will be left to starve.  The complex neoliberal dimensions of this social assistance program challenges us to rethink the term with respect to new forms of politics.

I find Ferguson's piece a useful analytic tool of the application of the word neoliberalism.  Too often in my field (Critical Curriculum Studies), the term is thrown around too casually to describe a plethora of overlapping issues (with the assumption we all mean the same thing). I think it is wise to avoid conflating issues (and abusing the term neoliberalism) to describe, for example, the privatization of education through educational management organizations (EMOS) and the standardized testing movement which punishes schools for low-performing test scores. There are differences between neoliberal "arts of government" and class-based "ideological projects.  Thus, neoliberalism should be re-defined and re-visiting.

Moreover,  I especially enjoyed Ferguson's opening discussion on the Left's overusage of the word "anti" (e.g. anti-neoliberalism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalism. Ferguson states it is not enough to decry the system.  We need to figure out "what we want" on the left.  This seems to fit into my post-structural work in critical pedagogy. So much of what I study and write deconstructs or disrupts existing systems, policies, and pedagogical practices. For example, I write about anti-oppressive pedagogy, anti-neoliberal school practices. Hence, what I am left with after all this critical deconstruction is the question of "now what?" The pragmatist in me attempts to merge ethics with politics and practice.  Although what I suggest as a replacement for the "screwed up neoliberal policies in education," brings me back to the question of government.  I can argue with the rest of the educational philosophers to end oppressive school policies and practices like No Child Left Behind, or Race to the Top, which the federal government has implemented nation-wide, yet we still need to realistically re-visit what we say should replace these neoliberal policies.